c copyright 2013 the authors. notice changes introduced as ... ·...

This is the author’s version of a work that was submitted/accepted for pub-lication in the following source:

Wright, Natalie, Wrigley, Cara, & Bucolo, Sam (2013) A methodologicalapproach to modelling design led innovation across secondary education: an Australian case study. In Design Learning for Tomorrow - Design Ed-ucation from Kindergarten to PhD, DRS (Design Research Society) andCUMULUS (the International Association of Universities and Colleges ofArt, Design and Media), Oslo and Akershus University College of AppliedSciences, Faculty of Technology, Art and Design, Pilestredet 35, Oslo, Nor-way . (In Press)

This file was downloaded from: http://eprints.qut.edu.au/57625/

c© Copyright 2013 the authors.

Notice: Changes introduced as a result of publishing processes such ascopy-editing and formatting may not be reflected in this document. For adefinitive version of this work, please refer to the published source:

http://eprints.qut.edu.au/view/person/Wright,_Natalie.html

http://eprints.qut.edu.au/view/person/Wrigley,_Cara.html

http://eprints.qut.edu.au/view/person/Bucolo,_Sam.html

http://eprints.qut.edu.au/57625/

DRS // CUMULUS 2013 2nd International Conference for Design Education Researchers Oslo, 14–17 May 2013

Copyright © 2013. Copyright in each paper on this conference proceedings is the property of the author(s). Permission is granted to reproduce copies of these works for purposes relevant to the above conference, provided that the author(s), source and copyright notice are included on each copy. For other uses, including extended quotation, please contact the author(s).

A methodological approach to modelling design led innovation across secondary education: An Australian case study Natalie WRIGHT *, Cara WRIGLEY and Sam BUCOLO

Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, Australia

Abstract: Incorporating design thinking as a generic capability at a school level is needed to ensure future generations are empowered for business innovation and active citizenship. This paper describes the methodology of an investigation into modelling design led innovation approaches from the business sector to secondary education, as part of a larger study. It builds on a previously discussed research agenda by outlining the scope, significance and limitations of currently available research in this area, examining an action research methodology utilising an Australian design immersion program case study, and discussing implications and future work. It employs a triangulated approach encompassing thematic analysis of qualitative data collection from student focus groups, semi-‐structured convergent interviews with teachers and facilitators, and student journals. Eventual outcomes will be reviewed and analysed within the framework of a proposed innovation matrix model for educational growth, synthesising principles responding to 21st century student outcomes. It is anticipated this research will inform a successful design led secondary education innovation model, facilitating new engagement frameworks between tertiary and secondary education sectors, as well as providing new insight into the suitability of action research in prototyping social innovation in Australia.

Keywords: Design led innovation, design thinking, secondary and tertiary education, action research.

* Corresponding Author: School of Design | Queensland University of Technology | Australia | e-mail: [email protected]

Natalie WRIGHT, Cara WRIGLEY and Sam BUCOLO

2

1.0 Introduction The publication of Landry’s The Creative City (2000), Howkin’s The Creative Economy

(2001) and Florida’s The Rise of the Creative Class (1999) has stimulated a liberal discourse on the value and importance of creativity and innovation to the global economy, and to understanding the complex challenges facing us in the twenty-‐first century. However, “in the last eight years, Australia has slipped from fifth to eighteenth in the World Economic Forum’s Global Competitiveness Index”. (Carr 2009, p.2). With an understanding of design as the link between creativity and innovation (Cox 2005, p.2), Australia needs to consider design thinking as central to its innovation drive (Livingstone, 2012) for future productivity. As The Centre for Educational Research and Innovation (2008, p.3) acknowledges, this is dependent on building capacities in life-‐learning skills, creativity, and innovation, ensuring alignment of education with the knowledge economy and society of the 21st Century. New modes of education that prepare the “missing middle” or K-‐16 education pipeline (Carnevale and Desrochers 2002, pp.18-‐22) to effectively drive the creative economic engine, need to be explored, ensuring that future business leaders are equipped with the necessary skills and habits to sustain economic, social and environmental resilience.

The United Kingdom Design Commission recommends an urgent re-‐examination of design education at all levels to preserve design industry competitiveness and to contribute to social and economic revival (Design Commission 2011; Design Council 2011, p.14). An international analysis of design education policy highlights that Finland’s significant investment in interdisciplinary design research, education and promotion in 2005, dramatically impacted the country’s global competitiveness (Design Commission 2011, p.39), and rated Finland as the top performing education system in 2006 (Ministry of Education and Culture of Finland 2007) and in the top three performing countries in the OECD 2009 PISA tests (OECD 2010). Australia’s Asia Pacific neighbours including Singapore, Korea, Hong Kong and China are also actively realigning design education to ensure the effective delivery of an innovative workforce to support industry. These countries also rated amongst the top-‐performing school systems in the 2009 PISA tests (OECD 2010).

Australia also statistically rated significantly above the OECD average in the 2009 PISA assessments and is placed in the McKinsey School Systems Report “Good Performance” band (Finland is the only country placed in the Excellent Band) (Mourshed et al. 2010). However, due to the absence of a National Design Policy, and a National Education Policy that fails to recognise the cultural, economic and environmental contribution of design, Australia’s activities did not rate a mention in this report. However, if indeed, “using creativity and design-‐based thinking to solve complex problems is a distinctive Australian strength that can help meet the emerging challenges of this century” in the Asian region, as stated in the Australia in the Asian Century White Paper (Commonwealth of Australia 2012, p.8), then there is a need to cultivate this strength by establishing a design led culture similar to the Nordic countries. In the context of this paper, “design led” is defined by Bucolo and Matthews (2011, p.2) as “the tools & approaches which enable design thinking to be embedded as a cultural transformation”. Design thinking can be defined as the translation of “observations into insights and insights into products and services that will improve lives"(Brown 2009, p. 49). This transformation requires the introduction of design awareness at a school level, and the provision of incentives for students and teachers to work across disciplines and build open collaborative learning networks servicing

A Methodological Approach to Modelling Design Led Innovation Across Secondary Education

3

Australia’s vast geography. However, to date, delivering design led innovation in an educational context has been confined to an industrial design/product design discipline (Wrigley and Bucolo 2011; Fixson 2009) and from a design thinking perspective in business education in limited international universities (Matthews, Bucolo and Wrigley 2011). Furthermore, there are no clearly defined frameworks for the application of design led innovation in the education sector, and empirical data surrounding design education integration in secondary school contexts, and its impact on national innovation and education systems, is extremely limited.

This paper, as part of a larger study, builds on a previously discussed research agenda (Wright, Wrigley and Bucolo 2012) by outlining an action research methodology designed to assist in the development of a prototype “innovation matrix” for modelling design led innovation in the secondary education sector. A focus on the action research cycle, which essentially mirrors the innovation process, highlights the intrinsic importance of the methodology design to the success of this research. To date, the role of action research as a resource for large-‐scale innovation has been limited, so it is therefore important that meta-‐methodology research in this area is discussed and reported to the research community. The paper reviews literature and highlights the current gaps in knowledge surrounding design led innovation in secondary education, and then describes an action research methodology utilising an Australian regional secondary school design immersion program case study entitled “goDesign Travelling workshop program for regional secondary school students” (Wright et al 2010). A triangulated approach to thematic analysis of qualitative data collected from student focus groups, semi-‐structured convergent interviews with teachers and facilitators, and visual protocol analysis of student journals, is discussed. A design led innovation framework for business growth is overlaid with 21st century student outcomes (The Partnership for 21st Century Skills 2009), and will be used to capture the results of the action research study and provide future recommendations for curriculum advancement of design in secondary education. It is anticipated that the findings of this research will allow further prototype testing through action research, potentially encouraging policy makers to see the value of design led innovation in the education sectors, and also contributing to knowledge about the viability of action research to successfully attain a scale required to achieve social innovation.

2.0 Modelling Design Led Innovation Across the Secondary Education Sector To ensure Australia remains globally competitive in the knowledge economy, there

is an urgent need to investigate the impact of a design led culture on national innovation, in particular the introduction of design thinking as a generic capability at a school level. This research problem will be investigated through questioning:

How can design led innovation be modelled across the secondary education sector in Australia as part of a design led culture, to facilitate 21st century student outcomes and empower future generations for business innovation and active citizenship in the knowledge economy?


4

The study will address the lack of evidence-‐based theory-‐practice research on modelling design led innovation across the secondary education sector in Australia and the following sub-‐research questions:

§ How can design led innovation capabilities be facilitated through an Australian immersion program?

§ What is the perceived value of design led innovation capabilities held by students, secondary school educators, tertiary educators and design professionals?

§ What is the perceived value of design in secondary education and its role in the future knowledge economy?

It is the proposition of this research, that a comprehensive analysis of current research in the five areas of international design and education policy, design led innovation in business, design led innovation in the education sector, secondary education curriculum and innovation/engagement in the secondary/tertiary education spheres is required (refer Figure 1), in order to assist in prototyping a model for design led innovation in the Australian secondary education sector, in the form of design immersion. Informed by this model, the “goDesign” (Wright et al 2010) regional case study pedagogy/curriculum and associated research agenda will be revised in preparation for a second phase to be conducted in Queensland, adding to the body of knowledge surrounding the value of design immersion programs in Australia, and potentially encouraging other states to broaden the case study and research findings.

Figure 1. Key Components of the Proposed Research

2.1 Design Education in the Knowledge Economy: An Emerging Field More recently, design thinking has been acknowledged by increasingly diverse

professions and industry leaders as a wider strategy to enable innovation across all sectors, including education. This is evidenced in program changes at Harvard, Stanford, MIT and other top 50 ranked universities, and executive training in leading business organisations. However, reviews by McGimpsey (2011) and Miller (2011) of design education in the United Kingdom National Curriculum since its establishment in 1988, highlight a surprising lack of evidence-‐based research assessing the impact of design in the secondary education sector on national innovation and education systems. To ensure that future business and community leaders are equipped with the

Design Led Innovation Matrix for

Secondary Education

Curriculum

Business

Policy

Education

Engagement


5

necessary skills and habits for the future, there is a need to address this gap with further research in design led innovation in the secondary education sector.

Consideration of a design led innovation model for secondary education in the knowledge economy, requires an understanding of the evolved cultural shift from the traditional “teacher-‐based approach” towards a “learning based approach” (Thomas and Brown 2011). John Seely Brown (2010, p.xi), former Chief Scientist of Xerox Corporation and Director Emeritus, Xerox PARC, notes that learning in the 21st century is no longer ‘”learning about” nor “learning to be”. Instead, he proposes that there is a “need to embrace a theory of learning to become”, where learning is an evolving practice of becoming, dealing with more than systems and identity, and transmission of knowledge. To do this, he says that we need to consider new emerging modes of learning which consider “social, distributed and networked dimensions” and the “broader economic and technological landscape” in which the learning occurs (Brown 2010, p. xii).

In this “New Culture” the students of generation “P” for “participatory” (Jenkins 2006) learn from the building of their own networked communities or collectives (Thomas and Brown 2011, p.52) based on shared interests and perspective, and assisted by digital technologies (2011, p.89). Cope and Kalantzis (2010, p. 597) argue that this shift from authoritative instruction to peer-‐to-‐peer learning through agency, requires that education needs to cater for the “growing numbers of people who are designers by persuasion but not profession”. Design in education must be conceived of as interdisciplinary and even metadisciplinary.

Beckman and Barry (2007) claim that the embedding of design thinking incorporates all four phases of an ideal learning cycle – experiencing, reflecting, thinking and acting. They advocate for the value of innovation as an experiential learning process of “problem finding/problem selecting, solution finding/solution selecting, or story-‐telling” (2007, p.47). As opposed to the main focus of education today on problem solving, the innovation process places equal importance on identifying, framing and reframing the problem to be solved. It is also a learning cycle that draws upon the four learning styles of (i) diverging, (ii) assimilating, (iii) converging and (iv) accommodating. It allows the learner to experience their learning style preferences, and gain an understanding and empathy for the different personalities required to achieve innovation. Design led innovation in education provides a logical structure and framework for critical and creative thinking and a curatorial approach to nurture and empower non-‐traditional forms of collective learning. It also has the potential to provide an extra visual language for communication, unlock practical competence in non-‐academic students and develop resourceful optimism, motivation and a sense of agency (Design Commission 2011, p.28), thus addressing the pressing educational challenges of promoting active citizenship, developing employability, and tackling underachievement and social exclusion (Bentley 1998).

If “creative people are indeed the chief currency of the emerging economic age” (Florida 1999, p.28), the Australian National Curriculum needs to optimise vocational creative capacity building, elevating creativity, from its value-‐neutral position in art education and as a higher order thinking skill in Bloom’s Taxonomy, to an interdisciplinary and metadisciplinary practice for innovation. This will require a comprehensive design led framework to be developed to allow prototyping and infrastructuring for social innovation across the education sector. It must engage on a political level and respond to economic growth imperatives, as well as educational objectives. It will also require educators to shift their attention from “content delivery


6

to capacity building, from supplying curriculum to co-‐creating curriculum, from supplying education to navigating learning networks” and to shift student attention from “their own individual performance to their capacity to learn through their own networks – to connect, access information and forge relationships in and through dynamic and productive teams” (McWilliam and Haukka 2008, p.23).

It is understood that Finland’s high educational outcomes have not been achieved by performance measures, standard templates, teacher accountability, or by prioritising test performance above all other aspects of learning. As Bentley (2008, p.228) notes, this success has been achieved through the development of a set of institutional foundations that promote a “culture of open, network-‐based interaction, symbolised by Nokia”. On this basis, Bentley (2008) advocates for open innovation, involving new practices and models for schooling generated at a local level, and continuously reshaped and tested via open collaborative learning networks with clear protocols and coordination systems (2008, p.206). This research proposes such a model for design led innovation that has the capability to be tested through action research in schools, with a view to larger scale reform.

2.2 Design Led Innovation in the Classroom This research utilises Baghai, Coley & White’s (1999) “horizons of growth”

framework in order to better understand a model for design led innovation that can potentially be translated across educational contexts. Baghai et al (1999) describe a company’s growth potential to be a function of three distinct phases or “horizons” of product and revenue creation, each managed simultaneously for effective innovation. Horizon One in this framework is defined as the core business of the current corporation, usually accounting for the majority of annual revenue, profit and cash flow. Horizon Two includes the ventures in the entrepreneurial phase or just entering the market (with a long way to go before market maturation). Finally, Horizon Three contains the investments or seeds for tomorrow’s growth.

Similarly, a “growth staircase” of manageable actions can be drawn to establish three horizons required for effective innovation in the classroom and the growth of the 21st century student. Carroll et al’s (2010) research conducted within an urban middle school in the United Kingdom education system, highlights the efficacy of design thinking under three major themes of (i) Design as Exploring: Understanding Design, (ii) Design as Connecting: Affect & Design, and (iii) Design as Intersecting: Design Thinking & Content Learning. In this context, overlayed with the 21st Century skill outcomes outlined in the P21 Framework Definitions (The Partnership for 21st Century Skills 2009), the “Design as Exploring” theme can be categorized as the “Horizon One” phase described by Baghai et al. (1999). This is where students explore and understand the design process while also mastering core subjects and 21st century themes such as global awareness and entrepreneurial, civic, heath and environmental literacy (The Partnership for 21st Century Skills 2009, pp. 2-‐3). The “Design as Connecting” theme relates well with the “Horizon Two” phase (Baghai et al, 1999). This involves preparing students for more complex life and work environments with creativity and innovation skills, critical thinking and problem solving skills, communication and collaboration skills, information, media and technology literacy (The Partnership for 21st Century Skills 2009, pp. 3-‐6), as well as metacognitive skills. Lastly, the “Design as Intersecting” theme correlates with the Baghai et al’s (1999) “Horizon Three” objective. This consists of planting the seeds for tomorrow’s growth by developing adequate life and career


7

skills to empower utilisation of design thinking in life and work environments, including flexibility and adaptability, initiative and self-‐direction, social and cross-‐cultural skills, productivity and accountability, and leadership and responsibility (The Partnership for 21st Century Skills 2009, pp.6-‐7).

Mapping the efficacy of design thinking with the 21st century student outcomes provides a framework for the evaluation and continuous improvement of design thinking pedagogy in the classroom. However, in order for this framework to resist a linear approach to creative capacity building, and allow for more longitudinal data collection, it must incorporate the complexity of changing learning environments, intermediary social structures and stakeholders, and new pedagogical approaches.

2.3 The Innovation Matrix In business, Kyffin and Gardien (2009, p.57) propose “the scope of innovation has

increased in complexity, where products, services, user needs and technologies need to be integrated while bringing many different stakeholders together”. They indicate that this therefore requires an alternative non-‐linear process of innovation as a network of options seen within a trajectory of three horizons of growth and utilised on a case-‐by-‐case basis. Their “Innovation Matrix” emphasises that different competencies, capabilities and personal profiles are required for each phase and propose that the mechanisms of “identifying value”, “developing value” and “communicating value” are superimposed on the three horizons model to effectively capitalise on opportunities in Horizon Three.

In the quest for a design led innovation approach for the secondary education context, where Horizon Three represents the development of individual life skills beyond the classroom and the navigation of complex environments in the globally competitive information age, it can be argued that a similar landscape of complexity exists. McWilliam and Haukka (2008, p.21) note that creative capacity building requires a fundamental shift towards a more experimental pedagogical setting, drawing on a fluid network of people and ideas. As design becomes located more centrally in society’s immediate agendas by the discourses of the knowledge economy, it is also relevant to note Cope and Kalantzis’ (2011, p.45) notion of a “shift in the balance of agency”, which they argue “affects the roles and relationships of designers and users and which increasingly demands design interdisciplinarity” and a transformation of the repertoire of designers’ practices.

This has implications for teachers, professional designers and tertiary educators in modelling design led innovation in the secondary education sector. As schools “transform themselves to become the hubs of learning networks …. brokering learning opportunities with people and organisations in the communities around them” (Bentley 1998, p.183), teachers will gain opportunities to embrace new flexible learning opportunities beyond the classroom, motivated by the power of community-‐based collaborative learning. Therefore, a similar “Innovation Matrix”, to allow innovation-‐generating possibilities in an open learning model, and to leverage future development in this sector, warrants construction. It needs to capture the potential variables of community, parents, design and industry professionals, business professionals, university educators, tertiary design, business and education students, online tools and out-‐of-‐classroom activity.


8

2.4 Literature Summary A review of current literature surrounding the five aforementioned study areas,

highlights a number of knowledge gaps as summarised below:

§ Design led innovation frameworks in the business sector have not been mapped across the education sector, and therefore literature on how to successfully implement design thinking across (and into) education is limited.

§ There is a lack of systematic academic research surrounding the role of design thinking in educational contexts. The research to date has largely been driven by policy or conducted in small isolated contexts.

§ There is limited current research that addresses how design led innovation correlates to the development of the 21st century skills.

§ There is no substantial current research on design led innovation in the secondary education sector. Academic research on design led innovation education in the tertiary sector is limited to business, science and technology and design. As a result, the value of implementing design led innovation in secondary schools and tertiary education sectors for future business success is, as yet, unknown.

§ Creativity has become increasingly important within the wider secondary education discourse and now occupies a central position in definitions of curriculum design. However, the definitions of design, design thinking, design-‐led innovation and creativity in the education sectors are currently ambiguous and misunderstood.

§ Research surrounding educational innovation has neglected to comprehensively explore design led innovation as a strategy for aligning education with the knowledge economy and society of the 21st century.

The summary of literature, indicates that in order for design led innovation to be successfully modelled in the secondary education context to build generic capability for future 21st century citizens, design led innovation in the business sector must be translated across to the education sector. From this, a framework for future action research can be developed.

3.0 Methodology From the identification of the research gap, the methodology of action research was

selected, with the aim to explore design led innovation in an immersion program in the classroom, and conducted through a multiple embedded case study. Cope and Kalantzis’s (2011) notion of a “shift in the balance of agency” demands a research methodology which is “as an agent of change” (Gray 2009, p.313). Appropriately for this study, action research is widely used both in business and education spheres as an emancipatory tool to approach real-‐world problems and bring about social change, requiring collaboration between researchers and practitioners -‐ a marriage between “Theory” and “Praxis” (Hammersley 2004). In a quest to utilise this methodology within a framework for future open innovation at local levels across the state, Bjorn Gustavsen’s experiences from action research programmes for business innovation in Scandinavia, must be noted. To date, action research has so far played a limited role as a resource in democratic innovation, with the core challenge to encourage participants/researchers “to reach a level of scale, or mass, that makes innovation possible” (Gustavsen 2005, p.267). This study also becomes meta-‐methodology


9

research to this end, adding significance to the contribution of this study in a global context.

3.1 Research Approach Crotty (1998, pp.2-‐9) suggests that there is an interrelationship between the

researcher’s epistemological stance and the theoretical perspectives adopted, which in turn influences the research methodology, and then the choice of methods for data gathering. Figure 2 illustrates the proposed research relationships in this research design. An inductive approach will be utilised, with data gathering and data analysis methods designed to be qualitative (favoured by participation).

Figure 2. Structure of the Proposed Research Process. Source: Adapted from Crotty 1998. In actively seeking to showcase to policy makers, the value of design process to prepare students with the skills for the 21st century knowledge economy, this research takes a constructivist epistemological position, emphasising “instrumental & practical function of theory construction” (Crotty 1998, p. 57). In the mode of “bricoleur”, constructivist research requires that the problem be approached in “a radical spirit of openness” to the potential of reinterpreting conventional meanings (1998, p. 51).

It follows then, that the primary constructivist approach is critical inquiry for the development of critical theory. This is a meta-‐process of investigation that invites both researchers and participants to question currently held values and assumptions, and challenge conventional social structures, as a guide to effective action (Gray 2009, p.25). By preparing students with the tools to utilise the design process as a different way of looking at the world, the research aims to empower them with life learning skills to create social change, for the cultivation of a more progressive, creative and democratic society. Boog argues that the action research methodology has these emancipatory intentions and is:

designed to improve the researched subjects’ capacities to solve problems, develop skills (including professional skills), increase their chances of self-‐determination, and

Analysis

Methods

Methodology

Research Approach

Theoreqcal Perspecqve

Epistemology Construcqvism

Criqcal Theory/Inquiry

Inducqve

Acqon Research

Mulqple Embedded Case Study

Focus Groups Interviews

Themaqc Analysis

Triangulaqon

Student Journals

Reflecqve Journal


10

to have more influence on the functioning and decision making of organisations and institutions from the context in which they act. (Boog 2003, p.426)

His review shows that design thinking is to some extent implicit in the historical roots of action research. It is a methodology developed out of critical theory, but goes beyond just understanding the situation, to asking “How can it be changed?” (McNiff and Whitehead 2011, p.47), with an emphasis on its participatory nature to combat relations of power.

The research seeks to address global competiveness by establishing a design led culture, involving the introduction of design thinking as a generic capability at a school level. Bucolo and Matthews (2011, p.2) define “design led” as having a vision for growth based on deep customer insights; expanding this vision through co-‐design with stakeholders; and mapping these insights to all aspects of the business. This correlates to the aims of action research, which Carr and Kemmis (1986) describe as a practice-‐based practice: the improvement of practice; the improvement of the understanding of practice; the improvement of the situation in which the practice takes place. Review of the design thinking or innovation process as adapted by Beckman and Barry (2007, p.47) from Kolb’s experiential learning cycle, against the “spiral process” (Hammersley 2004) of an action research cycle (Zuber-‐Skerritt 2001, p. 15), presents some distinct similarities. The “Plan”, “Act”, “Observe” and “Reflect” cycle of action research corresponds to the “Imperatives”, “Solutions”, “Artifacts” and “Insight” of the design thinking/innovation process, thus the generic capabilities of design thinking are mirrored in the research process. In much the same way design is an iterative process, Zuber-‐Skerritt (1996a) notes that reaching the fourth step in the action research cycle initiates a new cycle and so on. Additionally, action research, like the innovation process, is “problem-‐sensing and problem-‐focusing” -‐ a problem indicates a need to effect change and bring about improvement (Hart and Bond 1995, p.52), requiring an organised involvement of a researcher or a consultant in the environment where the problem exists (Gill and Johnson 2002, pp. 65-‐95).

As this study requires the influence of the researcher/facilitator as an outside design “expert”, who will have a major role in the research endeavours and the development of the efficacy of educational practices and professional development, the methodology is distinguished by Zuber-‐Skerritt (1996b) as technical action research. Hart and Bond (1995, pp. 37-‐38) observe seven criteria of action research that differentiate it from other methodologies:

§ is educative; § deals with individuals as members of social groups; § is problem-‐focused, content-‐specific and future-‐orientated; § involves a change intervention; § aims at improvement and involvement; § involves a cyclic process in which research, action and evaluation are interlinked; § is founded on a research relationship in which those involved are participants in the change process.

In addition to this, educational action researchers transform their practice into living theories, informing new practices for themselves and others in the direction of their educational and social values (McNiff and Whitehead 2011). This study will take a living theory perspective that will place the researcher as the practitioner at the heart of the educational inquiry, with a view to generating a personal living educational


11

theory. The researcher will explain how they are accountable for their own learning and their influence in the learning of others. (McNiff and Whitehead 2011, p.47)

3.2 Research Objectives With an understanding of Carr and Kemmis’s (1986) previously mentioned

definition of action research as “the improvement of practice; the improvement of the understanding of practice; and the improvement of the situation in which the practice takes place”, a collaborative, participatory, whole school community approach aims to achieve the following primary objectives:

§ Speculation on the alignment of design led innovation in education with 21st century student outcomes and preparation for business innovation and active citizenship in the Knowledge Economy.

§ Facilitation of meta-‐research, allowing for the researcher’s improved understanding of the methodology and its value to their design education practice in the creation of a personal ‘living educational theory’ about innovation and cultural transformation.

§ Proposal of guidelines and development of a framework or innovation matrix for modelling design led innovation in the secondary education sector in Australia, to allow for prototype testing through action research, with a view to larger scale reform.

To achieve such objectives the study is informed by a comprehensive literature review comprised of the five aforementioned relevant areas of study, within Flick’s (2006) three categories of theoretical, empirical and methodological literature. Given the state of Queensland’s unique reliance on industry clusters in regional and remote centres for economic growth, and its sheer geographical scale and diversity, which typifies the greatest challenge to modelling design led innovation in schools in Australia, a case study utilising participants in a wide, random sampling of regional public secondary schools was devised. The integration and contrast of differing perspectives will allow construction of a rich and detailed understanding of context to inform a design led education innovation model in the form of the proposed “innovation matrix”.

3.3 Case Study The case study (or multiple case studies) is the prevailing medium for action

research (Gray 2009, p.30). However, as action research deals with a specific situation, generalisation can be a concern (Gill and Johnson 2002). The multiple embedded Australian case study undertaken, was a design immersion program entitled “goDesign Travelling design workshop program for regional secondary school students” (Wright et al 2010) conducted throughout 2010. It was a three-‐day supportive and interactive experience simulating a design studio environment for up to 20 self-‐selected year 8-‐12 students and teachers from six selected regional Queensland high schools. Each workshop linked regional communities with two tertiary design educators, a visiting design practitioner, and in some locations, a local industry professional. The workshop program introduced the different disciplines of Graphic Design, Fashion Design, Product Design, Interior Design/Architecture and Landscape Architecture. Locations and participants in each of the six workshops are summarised in Table 1. During the program, students and teachers explore, analyse and re-‐imagine their local town


12

through a series of scaffolded problem solving activities around the theme of ‘place’. Underpinning the program is the integration of Burnette’s IDESiGN (1993) teaching model and a place-‐based approach that “draws upon local cultural, environmental, economic and political concerns”(Smith 2007, p.18).

3.4 Methods The validity of action research is based on many factors: the use of different

methods; interpretation of findings is shared with the participants to give “consensual validity” and the applicability of results in real life achieves “action validity” (Heller 2004). Furthermore, McTaggart (1997, p.37) notes that validity is maintained by ‘”triangulation of observations and interpretations, participant confirmation, and testing the coherence of arguments being presented”. Carpenter and Suto (2008) define methodological triangulation as that meaning that multiple methods are used in the data collection process. If similar findings emerge from these different methods, it “serves to enhance the validity of research results” (Hesse-‐Biber and Leavy 2005, p.65). To ensure validity of the research methods is maintained, a data triangulation approach, consisting of research outcomes from each workshop in the case study, was employed to collect multiple forms of visual and verbal data, illustrated in Table 1 including:

§ visual design outputs and student reflective journals used during the three-‐day workshop and collected at the completion of the workshop program;

§ qualitative semi-‐structured convergent interviews (Dick 1990) creating a dialectic with the participating school principals and teachers, and facilitators (captured by video recordings) at the completion of the workshop program; and

§ qualitative semi-‐structured focus groups conducted with the students (captured by video recordings) at the completion of the workshop program.

Additionally, the researcher’s reflective journal captured evidence of research/practice insights and reflection on student/teacher learning. Table 1. Schedule of goDesign Case Study Data Collection Methods

Case Study

Data Collection Date Semi-structured

Interviews Focus

Groups Student Journals

Reflective Journal

1

Principal IDT Teacher IDT Teacher Design Professional Facilitator Tertiary Student Facilitators (2)

Grade 10-12 IDT/Visual Arts/ Graphics Students (20)

Grade 10-12 IDT/Visual Arts/ Graphics Students (20)

Researcher + Facilitator Validation Group

Feb 2010

2

Dance Teacher Visual Art Teacher Design Professional Facilitator

Grade 12 Visual Arts students (6)

Grade 12 Visual Arts students (6)


March 2010

3

Principal Manual Arts Teacher Visual Art Teacher Design Professional Facilitator

Grade 8-12 Secondary Students (8) (incl. (2) intellectually impaired)

Grade 8-12 Secondary Students (8) (incl. (2) intellectually impaired)


May 2010


13

4 Graphics Teacher Visual Art Teacher Design Professional Facilitator

Grade 10-12 Visual Arts/ Graphics Students (20)



July 2010

5

Graphics Teacher Visual Art Teacher Design Professional Facilitator




August 2010

6

Principal IDT Teacher Teacher’s Aide Design Professional Design Professional Facilitator

Grade 10 -12 IDT/Visual Arts Students (20)

Grade 10 -12 IDT/Visual Arts Students (20)


Sept 2010

3.5 Analysis Somekh (1995) states that action research reporting should address academics’ and

practitioners’ interests alike. This research draws on a comparative analysis of the emergent themes from the triangulated collection of multiple information sources of qualitative data. Thematic analysis is “a method for identifying, analysing and reporting patterns (themes) within the data” (Braun and Clarke 2006, p.79) and is perceived “as a foundational method for qualitative analysis” (2006, p.78). Thematic outcomes from the triangulation will then be utilised within the framework of the proposed aforementioned “innovation matrix” model for educational growth, to inform a design led education innovation model. The analysis methods for each data set will be as follows:

SEMI-‐STRUCTURED CONVERGENT INTERVIEWS AND FOCUS GROUPS Raw interview and focus group case data will be collated, transcribed and analysed

for each case. Each will undergo a case-‐by-‐case emergent thematic analysis using grounded theory processes of coding, memoing and sorting (Glaser 1992). This is essentially a detailed examination of the data for identifying, naming, categorising and describing patterns in the text. From the emergence of themes, a coding framework will be generated in order to identify the significant themes, categories and sub-‐categories.

STUDENT REFLECTIVE JOURNAL AND VISUAL DESIGN OUTPUTS Student reflective journals and visual design outputs will be analysed using visual

protocol analysis to identify similar emergent themes, as discovered through the other analysis protocols. Instead of identifying themes from a verbal data set, now this will be done from a visual data set format. Loizos (2000) argued that visual data collection is also needed to corroborate testimonials of verbal data as a means to uncover ambiguous interpretations. His conclusions are in accordance with those studies in which sketches were used along with verbal protocols in order to access greater detail of the design process as a whole. (Loizos 2000, p.96)

RESEARCHER’S REFLECTIVE JOURNAL The researcher’s reflective journal will be analysed to find evidence of exercising

influence to improve learning for improving practice, contributing to meta-‐research in improving the research practice, and the development of a researcher/practitioner Living Educational Theory (Whitehead 2003; McNiff and Whitehead 2005). In


14

accordance with the suggestions of McNiff (1988), the five facilitators who accompanied the researcher to conduct the case studies in each location, along with the design professionals (where available), will form a validation group, which will meet at crucial stages of the project to scrutinise the outcomes of the study.

4.0 Implications and Future Work This paper presents the methodological approach of an ongoing research project

aimed at modelling design led innovation strategies from the business sector across secondary education, to provide a clearly defined social innovation prototype model. Using a triangulated approach to thematic research outcomes from an action research methodology in a multiple embedded case study, it is expected that this research will provide a new framework for curriculum involving design led innovation in the secondary education sector, to assist in preparing students with the skills required to operate in the 21st century knowledge society. This framework or “innovation matrix” will accommodate a network infrastructure, engaging the tertiary education sector, community, industry and design professionals, to provide opportunities for growth beyond the traditional classroom scenario. It is also expected that this research and the resulting conclusions for the finished project will provide a deeper understanding of the value of the action research methodology in modelling design led innovation in the education sector, in particular its ability to scale to achieve social innovation. Furthermore, it will improve personal learning for improving practice, contributing to meta-‐research in improving the research practice, and the development of a Living Educational Theory. It is perceived that there will be a multi-‐faceted contribution to new knowledge in the broader research community, with findings from this study impacting the professional design sector and business sector, as well as the secondary and tertiary education sectors. It is anticipated that the findings of this research will encourage policy makers to see the value of design led innovation in the education sectors, and encourage ongoing action research investigations in this area, with the long term aim to address the lack of evidence-‐based theory-‐practice research on modelling design led innovation across education sectors in Australia.

Acknowledgements: The “goDesign Travelling Workshop Program for Regional Secondary Students” was funded by a 2009 Queensland University of Technology Engagement Innovation Grant. As Chief Investigator for this project, Natalie Wright would like to acknowledge the contribution of the members of the grant team Dr Kristine Jerome, Professor Jill Franz, Michael Berry, and research assistant Adam Wigg, as well as Andrew Scott, Associate Professor Phil Crowther and Les Hooper for their contribution to the workshop program content. Workshop facilitators Professor Jill Franz, Michael Berry, Tim Williams, Lindy Osborne and Rebekah Davis are also acknowledged.

5.0 References Baghai, M., S. Coley, and D. White. 1999. The alchemy of growth: Practical insights for

building the enduring enterprise. Reading, MA: Perseus Books. Beckman, S.L., and M. Barry. 2007. “Innovation as a learning process: Embedding design thinking”. California Management Review 50(1): 25-‐56.


15

Bentley, Tom. 2008. “Open learning: a systems-‐driven model of innovation”. In Innovating to learn, learning to innovate, edited by Centre for Educational Research and Innovation, 205-‐229. Paris, France: OECD Publications.

Bentley, Tom. 1998. Learning beyond the classroom. London: Routledge. Boog, Ben W.M. 2003. “The emancipatory character of action research, its history and

the present state of the art”. Journal of Community & Applied Psychology 13(6): 426-‐438. doi: 10.1002/casp.748.

Braun, V., and V. Clarke. 2006. “Using thematic analysis in psychology”. Qualitative Research in Psychology 3(2):77-‐101.

Brown, J.S. 2010. “Forward: Education in the creative economy”. In Education in the creative economy, edited by D. Araya and M.A. Peters, ix-‐xii. New York: Peter Lang Publishing.

Brown, Tim. 2009. Change by design: how design thinking transforms organizations and inspires innovation. New York: HarperCollins Publishers.

Bucolo, S., and J.H. Matthews. 2011. “A conceptual model to link deep customer insights to both growth opportunities and organisational strategy in SME’s as part of a design led transformation journey”. In Design Management Toward a New Era of Innovation. Hong Kong Convention and Exhibition Center, Hong Kong.

Burnette, Charles. 1993. “IDESiGN -‐ Several Ways of Design Thinking, A Teaching Resource”. IDESiGN [cited 7 January 2010]. Available from http://www.idesignthinking.com/

Carnevale, A.P., and D.M Desrochers. 2002. “The missing middle: Aligning education and the knowledge economy”. Journal for Vocational Special Needs Education 25(1): 3-‐23.

Carpenter, C., and M. Suto. 2008. Qualitative research for occupational and physical therapists: A practical guide. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.

Carr, Kim. 2009. “Powering ideas: An innovation agenda for the 21st century”. Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia, Department of Innovation, Industry, Science and Research.

Carr, W., and S. Kemmis. 1986. Becoming critical: Education, knowledge, and action research. London: Falmer Press. Carroll, Maureen, Shelley Goldman, Leticia Britos, Jaime Koh, Adam Royalty, and

Michael Hornstein. 2010. "Destination, Imagination and the Fires within: Design Thinking in a Middle School Classroom." International Journal of Art & Design Education 29(1):37-‐53. doi: 10.1111/j.1476-‐8070.2010.01632.x.

Centre for Educational Research and Innovation. 2008. Innovating to learn, learning to innovate. Paris, France: OECD Publications.

Commonwealth of Australia, 2012. Australia in the asian century white paper. Canberra: Australian Government [cited 30 January 2013]. Available from http://asiancentury.dpmc.gov.au/white-‐paper

Cope, B., and M. Kalantzis. 2011. “’Design’ in Principle and Practice: A Reconsideration of the Terms of Design Engagement”. The Design Journal 14(1): 45-‐63. doi: 10.2752/175630610x12877385838768

Cope, B., and M. Kalantzis. 2010. “By Design”. In Education in the creative economy, edited by Daniel Araya and Michael A Peters, 587-‐ 611. New York : Peter Lang.

Cox, George. 2005. “Cox review of creativity in business: building on the UK’s strengths”. London, UK: Design Council. http://www.designcouncil.org.uk/publications/The-‐Cox-‐Review.


16

Crotty, Michael. 1998. The foundations of social research: meaning and perspective in the research process. Thousand Oaks, Calif: Sage Publications.

Design Commission. 2011. “Restarting Britain: Design education and growth”. London: Policy Connect. http://www.policyconnect.org.uk/apdig/restarting-‐britain-‐design-‐education-‐and-‐growth.

Design Council. 2011. Design for innovation 2011 [cited 27 April 2012]. Available from http://www.designcouncil.org.uk/our-‐work/insight/policy/recent-‐policy-‐work/design-‐for-‐innovation/

Dick, Bob. 1990. Convergent interviewing. Brisbane: Interchange. Fixson, S.K. 2009. “Teaching innovation through interdisciplinary courses and

programmes in product design and development: An analysis at 16 US schools”. Creativity and Innovation Management 18(3): 199 – 208.

Flick, U. 2006. An introduction to qualitative research 3rd Edition. London: Sage Publications Ltd

Florida, Richard. 1999. The rise of the creative class. New York: Basic Books. Gill, J., and P. Johnson. 2002. Research methods for managers 3rd edition. London: Sage

Publications Ltd. Glaser, B.G. 1992. Basics of grounded theory analysis. Mill Valley, CA: Sociology Press. Gray, D.E. 2009. Doing research in the real world. London: Sage Publications Ltd. Gustavsen, B. 2005. “Innovation and action research”. International Journal of Action

Research 1:267-‐289. Hammersley, M. 2004. “Action research: A contradiction in terms?”. Oxford Review of

Education 30(2): 165-‐181. Hart, E., and M. Bond. 1995. Action research for health and social care: A guide to

practice. Buckingham: Open University Press. Heller, F. 2004. “Action Research and Research Action: A Family of Methods”. In

Essential guide to qualitative methods in organizational research, edited by C. Cassell & G. Symon, 349-‐360. London: Sage Publications Ltd.

Hesse-‐Biber, S.N., and L. P. Leavy. 2005. The practice of qualitative research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Howkins, J. 2001. The creative economy: How people make money from ideas. London: Allen Lane.

Jenkins, Henry. 2006. Fans, bloggers and gamers: Exploring participatory culture. New York: New York University Press.

Kyffin, S., and P. Gardien. 2009. “Navigating the Innovation Matrix: An Approach to Design-‐led Innovation”. International Journal of Design 3(1): 57-‐69.

Landry, C. 2008. The Creative City: A toolkit for urban innovators. London: Earthscan. Livingstone, C. 2012. “Design thinking can drive our innovation”. Focus: Australian

Academy of Technological Sciences and Engineering 173 (August). Loizos, P. 2000. “Video, Film and Photographs as Research Documents”. In Qualitative

researching with text, image and sound, edited by M. Bauer and G. Gaskell, 93-‐107. London: Sage Publications Ltd.

Matthews, J.H., S. Bucolo, and C. Wrigley. 2011. “Multiple perspectives of design thinking in business education”. In Design management towards a new era of innovation, edited by Cai, J., Lui, J., Tong, G., and A. Ip, 302 – 311. Hong Kong Convention Center, Hong Kong: Tsinghua – DMI.

McGimpsey, I. 2011. “A review of literature on design education in the national curriculum”. London, UK: RSA Design and Society. http://www.thersa.org/projects/design/design-‐in-‐the-‐school-‐curriculum


17

McNiff, J. 1988. Action research: Principles and practice. London: RoutledgeFalmer. McNiff, J., and J. Whitehead. 2005. Action research for teachers. London: David Fulton. McNiff, J., and J. Whitehead. 2011. All you need to know about action research. London:

Sage Publications Ltd. McTaggart, R. 1997. “Guiding Principles for Participatory Action Research’. In

Participatory action research, international contexts and consequences, edited by R. McTaggart, 25-‐43. Albany: State University of New York Press.

McWilliam, E., and S. Haukka. 2008. “Educating the Creative Workforce: New Directions for 21st Century Schooling”. British Education Research Journal 34(5): 651-‐666.

Miller, J. 2011. “What’s Wrong with DT?“ London, UK: RSA Design and Society. http://www.thersa.org/projects/design/design-‐in-‐the-‐school-‐curriculum

Ministry of Education and Culture of Finland. 2007. “OECD PISA 2006: Excellent results for Finnish students”. Ministry of Education and Culture [cited 15 July 2012]. Available from http://www.minedu.fi/OPM/tiedotteet/2007/12/pisa.html?lang=en

Mourshed, Mona, Chinezi Chijioke, and Michael Barber. 2010. How the world’s most improved school systems keep getting better. [cited 24 September 2012]. Available from http://mckinseyonsociety.com/how-‐the-‐worlds-‐most-‐improved-‐school-‐systems-‐keep-‐getting-‐better/.

OECD. 2010. “PISA 2009 results: Executive summary”. Paris, France: OECD Publishing. http://www.oecd.rg/edu/pisa/2009.

Romme, A. G. L. 2004. “Action research, emancipation and design thinking”. Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology 14(6): 495-‐499. doi: 10.1002/casp.794

Somekh, B. 1995. “The Contribution of Action Research to Development in Social Endeavours: A Position Paper on Action Research Methodology”. British Educational Research Journal 21(3): 339-‐355.

Smith, G.A. 2007. “Place-‐based Education: Breaking Through the Constraining Regularities of Public School”. Environmental Education Research 13(2): 189-‐207.

The Partnership for 21st Century Skills. 2009. P21 Framework Definitions [cited 27 April 2012]. Available from http://www.p21.org/overview/skills-‐framework

Thomas, D. and J.S. Brown. 2011. A New Culture of Learning: Cultivating the imagination for a world of constant change. Lexington, Ky: CreateSpace.

Whitehead, J. 2003. “Creating our living educational theories in teaching and learning to care: Using Multi-‐media to communicate the meanings and influence of our embodied educational values”. Teaching Today for Tomorrow 19:17-‐20.

Wright, N., K.P. Jerome, J.M. Franz, M.J. Berry, A. Wigg, A. Scott, P. Crowther, and L. Hooper. 2010. “goDesign Travelling design workshop program for regional secondary students”. Brisbane: Queensland University of Technology. http://eprints.qut.edu.au/47747/

Wright, Natalie., Cara Wrigley, and Sam Bucolo. 2012. “Broadening horizons: an emerging research agenda modelling design led innovation across secondary education”. In Leading Innovation through Design : Proceedings of the DMI 2012 International Research Conference, edited by Bohemia, Erik, Jeanne Liedtka, and Alison Rieple, 523-‐529. Boston, MA: DMI. http://eprints.qut.edu.au/53945/

Wrigley, C., and S. Bucolo. 2011. “Teaching design led innovation: The future of industrial design”. Design Principles and Practices 5(2): 231-‐240.

Zuber-‐Skerritt, O. 1996a. “Emancipatory Action Research for Organisational Change and Management Development”. In New Directions in Action Research, edited by O. Zuber-‐Skerritt, 83-‐104. London: Falmer Press.


18

Zuber-‐Skerritt, O. 1996b. “Introduction: New Directions in Action Research”. In New directions in action research, edited by O. Zuber-‐Skerritt, 3-‐9. London: Falmer Press.

Zuber-‐Skerritt, O. 2001. “Action Learning and Action Research: Paradigm, Praxis and Programs”. In Effective Change Management Using Action Research and Action Learning: Concepts, frameworks, processes, and applications, edited by Sankaran, S., B. Dick, R. Passfield, and P. Swepson, 1-‐20. Lismore, Australia: Southern Cross University Press.